Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence

Mary Hawking maryhawking at tigers.demon.co.uk
Fri Feb 17 19:13:50 GMT 2012

From: Mark Lomas [mailto:ukcrypto at absent-minded.com] 
Sent: 17 February 2012 18:46
To: nbohm at ernest.net; UK Cryptography Policy Discussion Group
Subject: Re: Unsecured wifi might be contributory negligence


>Ladder keepers might fall prey to the doctrine of 'attractive nuisance'.
You have a duty to protect children against the dangers of anything they may
find attractive but not recognise as dangerous.


>Originally the danger itself needed to be attractive (e.g. a swimming
pool), but I understand that some jurisdictions now consider any unguarded
danger to be an attractive nuisance.


>In particular, a warning sign may be considered inadequate protection,
especially if the child is too young to read it.


Could you elaborate on this doctrine and whether it is a legal one? It's new
to me.

Sounds as though it could be used for almost anything - children being
evolutionally programmed (like adults) to be curious about new experiences:
does the duty (if there is one) extend to adults and how is it defined?


Do guardians of children have a corresponding duty to prevent them
experiencing anything not legally guaranteed to be totally free from any
risk whatsoever?


And how is this enforced?


Mary Hawking 
"thinking - independent thinking - is to humans as swimming is to cats: we
can do it if we really have to."  Mark Earles on Radio 4.  

and don't forget patients like Fred!


Primary Health Info 2012 

23rd - 25th April 2012, Chesford Grange Warwickshire

'Using IT and Information to Deliver Transformational Change'


 <http://www.primaryhealthinfo.org> www.primaryhealthinfo.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/attachments/20120217/3b9c4a9c/attachment.html>

More information about the ukcrypto mailing list